Courts Matters Bill, Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill

I move, That the Courts Matters Bill and the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider these bills. The two bills are being introduced as cognate bills because they form an integrated package for the reform of the courts and tribunals system.

Independent, fair, and efficient courts and tribunals are a cornerstone of any healthy democracy. New Zealand has a robust system, which serves us well, but we can and should make the system easier to use and ensure that it keeps pace with people’s expectations. The Courts Matters Bill and the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill are the latest in a programme of legislative reform ensuring the legal framework for our justice services enables courts and tribunals to move with the times. This is a process of continuous improvement that is structured around making the system easier for people to understand and to use while upholding the law. Consistent, transparent, and efficient processes in our courts and tribunals that reflect the needs of today are important considerations for people accessing justice services. These two bills will contribute towards the development of a modern, efficient, and effective courts and tribunals system.

These bills will reduce the time it takes to hear and resolve matters, and will improve users’ experience of the courts and tribunals system. They will enable greater use of modern technology to further improve efficiency, effectiveness, and timeliness. They will simplify and standardise statutory powers and procedures to improve productivity and efficiency. And they will provide better consumer protection and redress and greater access to justice.

I turn now to the Courts Matters Bill. The bill amends 14 Acts governing court security, criminal procedure, fines enforcement, and other court processes. Part 1 of the Courts Matters Bill amends the Courts Security Act to extend the powers of court security officers to deny entry, and to remove and detain people who possess illegal drugs or who act threateningly or abusively or commit minor crimes on court premises. Court security officers are currently authorised to detain only people who have committed very serious offences. These increased powers will assist court security officers to provide the safe, secure, and orderly court environment that court users are entitled to.

Part 2 of the Courts Matters Bill amends the Criminal Procedure Act to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and timeliness of criminal processes and to address issues that have been identified following the implementation of major criminal procedure reforms in 2013. For example, category 2 offences with a maximum penalty of community work have been reclassified as category 1 offences. This recognises that these defendants do not always need to appear in court; instead, they will be able to plead guilty or not guilty through a written letter to the court.

Part 3 of the Courts Matters Bill amends the Summary Proceedings Act to strengthen the credibility of fines as sanctions and to enable more money to be collected sooner. This will include the greater use of modern technology to set up time payment arrangements. Part 3 will also simplify the procedures for placing charges on land and forcibly selling land to pay large fines. This will enable the District Court to impose statutory land charges on land owned by defendants who have overdue fines of $5,000 or more and to sell the land of defendants with overdue fines of $50,000 or more. The new, simpler processes will enable these tools to be used more often.

Part 4 of the Court Matters Bill amends 11 Acts to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and timeliness of court processes and to improve users’ experiences. For example, the order of the two judicial inquiries under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act will be reversed so that victims and other witnesses will not have to attend and give evidence twice. Part 4 also amends the Juries Act. Court staff will be able to communicate with jurors electronically, meaning jurors will receive information more quickly and by a more convenient method. Part 4 will also authorise court registrars to excuse potential jurors who are not confident in their understanding of the English language. This will provide these people with a simpler and quicker process that does not require the involvement of a judge.

I turn now to the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill, which I will refer to as the tribunals bill. The tribunals bill will standardise and modernise the powers and procedures of 21 tribunals, to improve their productivity, efficiency, and timeliness. These tribunals include the disputes tribunal and the Tenancy Tribunal, which almost 30,000 New Zealanders accessed in the last financial year. Users of these 21 tribunals will benefit from new standard provisions governing the summonsing of witnesses, the awarding of costs where a person has obstructed or unreasonably delayed proceedings, and contempt so that disruptive people can be more easily removed from a hearing.

Financial thresholds and levels that reflect the needs of today are important considerations for people accessing justice services. The tribunals bill will double the monetary limit of the disputes tribunal. It will increase from $15,000 to $30,000. This means that more disputes will be able to be resolved by the tribunal, which is a cheaper and faster alternative to a full court case. The tribunals bill will also provide better consumer protection and redress. For example, the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal will be able to award compensation of up to $100,000 for financial losses arising from a real estate agent’s unsatisfactory conduct. This will also provide a simpler, quicker, and cheaper alternative to a court case. In addition, the Private Security Personnel Licensing Authority will be able to discipline unsatisfactory conduct as well as misconduct. This will promote higher standards and increase confidence in the sector.

Users of other tribunals will also benefit from the tribunals bill. For example, the Legal Complaints Review Officer will be given the powers needed to reduce the backlog of cases that has developed. More cases will be able to be dealt with on the papers instead of a hearing having to be held. Meritless complaints will also be able to be struck out at an early stage. This will enable other cases to be resolved sooner. The Government is also taking the opportunity to disestablish the defunct Birdlings Flat Land Titles Commissioner. The commissioner completed his work some 17 years ago—in my electorate, so I am pleased to see that one.

Finally, in conclusion, these two cognate bills will further modernise court processes; standardise the powers and procedures of 21 tribunals to improve their productivity, efficiency, and timeliness; improve users’ experience of the court and tribunal system; and help make people safer in our court and tribunal buildings. I commend these bills to the House.

It is a pleasure to take a call on these, the Courts Matters Bill and the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill. It is very easy, on the presentation of the Minister of Justice’s argument for both of these bills, to say that, yes, anything that makes the administration of justice more effective, more efficacious, is obviously a desirable thing. But I have to say I do take some personal discomfort when I start seeing the language of “greater efficiency” and “greater productivity” applied to the processes of justice, and when I see that the language that is talked about includes “providing consumer protection” as well as greater access to justice. I have no questions or qualms about greater access to justice—but consumer protection? Can we just remind ourselves that most people who go to court—whether it is in the civil jurisdiction or the criminal jurisdiction—and most people who turn up to a tribunal are generally there not because they want to be there but because something has happened to them that they did not want to have happen, or, if they are answering as a defendant or a respondent, they are there against their will but because they have to defend their position or their interests too.

So let us not start regarding processes of justice as somehow akin to going to McDonald’s and whether or not you get fries with that. That is not about a better consumer experience. When it comes to justice, one thing is necessary, and that is that everybody who appears before a judicial body or a body acting judicially or quasi-judicially goes away feeling—if not immediately, then certainly within months—that they have been treated fairly, that their voice has been heard, and that the claim that they have advanced or that they have defended has been heard and treated justly. That is the only thing we ask of our expansive judicial system, whether it is the formal courts or whether it is the more informal tribunals. In the end, what matters most—and the reason we have a justice system—is public confidence in the conduct of our public officials and in the private transactions that we enter into. That is what we have a justice system for, and that is what we must achieve here.

So there are some things in these bills that clearly are worthy of consideration, and that is why we will support these bills in this first reading, so that they will get the close and proper examination by a select committee that they clearly need to have. When I have a look at, in the Courts Matters Bills, anything that would enhance the security of courts—particularly the District Court, which is dealing with a vast array of different cases under different criminal legislation as well as some civil cases—it is important that those who turn out to our courthouses and our courtrooms know that they can do so without the fear of being molested, without the fear of being interfered with, without intimidation, and without violence, which does happen. So if the court security officers need additional powers to ensure that that happens, then we will not stand in the way of that, and we expect that what goes with additional powers to ensure the safety and security of our processes, or the conduct of our court processes, is that those officers will receive the appropriate training so that they can discharge those powers and ensure the safety and security of all those in the courtrooms and the courthouses appropriately.

When I have a look at the changes to the Criminal Procedure Act, again this is where I think the claims of the need for greater efficiency and greater productivity need to be measured against what is happening right now, and users of the court system—the counsel, the judges, the staff, and, obviously, those appearing as defendants or parties to claims—we need to hear from them as well. This is because what is one person’s greater efficiency may well be another person’s injustice, and I have certainly seen plenty of that in my time too.

The Summary Proceedings Act changes allow for the chief executive of the ministry to “approve automated decision-making for imposing attachment orders to collect overdue fines,” and those sorts of things. On the face of it, this sounds like a desirable thing, but as somebody who has himself been the victim of an extraordinarily efficient system, who got issued a parking ticket only a few years ago and the first I knew I about it was when the payroll office of Parliament here told me that I had an attachment order on my parliamentary salary, I have to say that sometimes I think maybe the efficiency goes too far. The Wellington City Council, which issued the ticket, apparently could not track me down when it went unpaid. Although it knew the registration number and the address of the registration number of the car was the address that I was resident at, it still could not track me down. But when it made an application to the court to have an attachment order, it knew exactly where I was. So it did not reflect well on the Wellington City Council, and I took issue, at first, with the court processes, but they followed the rules. I was, of course, naturally happy to pay the fine, although by that time it had been pretty much paid through the attachment order and there was not a lot more that I could do.

So I just say that claims for greater efficiency have to be tested against the real lived experience of people who, you know, might have a parking ticket. Most people—and I am one of them; when I get a parking ticket, I like to dispose of it as quickly as possible. When I say “dispose of it” I do not mean throw the ticket away, but actually pay the fine. That needs to be reflected in the processes and systems that we have in our courts. So if the bill passes unchanged, I will be asking the chief executive of the Ministry of Justice, before he or she goes approving automated decisions for imposing attachment orders, that they also have systems to make sure that people who are at the end of those attachment orders know that they are going to be treated fairly, properly, and of course justly.

Other changes are assisting the assembly of juries to make sure that jurors who are called upon to act in that capacity—a very important part, still, of our criminal justice system and also of our civil system. Of course, as we all know, and I know through recent experience in defamation hearings, it is up to the plaintiff and the defendant to decide whether or not they are heard by a jury, and you do want to make sure that jurors, when they are hearing the evidence, are fully cognisant of it, understand it, and are understanding of the language in which the evidence is given. I think that is appropriate to make sure that jurors are properly equipped so that they can understand the evidence being given. That is a desirable thing to do. Again, for all of these things the test, ultimately, is in not just greater efficiency but the interests of justice—that the interests of the fair treatment of people who are before the courts are going to be properly served.

On that note, I will say that for both pieces of legislation, the Courts Matters Bill and the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill—both of which are predicated on this need for greater efficiency, greater productivity—we will support both. We will support both of them having that close examination of their content. Of course, that will not happen now until after the general election, and, of course, I fully trust that the House, in whatever form it is in after the election and whoever is on the select committee, whoever is chairing it and whatever members and whatever side of those committee tables they are on, will give due consideration to it.

It is very important that when this House is passing legislation relating to the administration of justice—because we are seen as, you know, the highest court in the land—when we are making rules about the administration of justice, we must make sure that those rules give rise to effective justice, that those rules are the best that they can be, and that this House, in making those rules and considering legislation that sets those rules, acquits itself as if it takes seriously the administration of justice. And ensuring that every citizen who comes before our courts and our tribunals, the most informal of our tribunals—that everybody understands that they will be treated fairly and properly and with the dignity that we would expect of every citizen in this, our great democracy.

As I say, we will support these bills; we will vote in favour of them today. Making sure that our justice system is effective in administering justice is absolutely crucial to public confidence in all our systems, and we want to see that achieved with these pieces of legislation.

I rise to take a short call in support of the Courts Matters Bill and the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill. To pick up on the point of the previous speaker, Andrew Little, I speak as the current chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee. Of course, Parliament will be dissolved on Thursday, so I will hold that mantle for a little bit of time to come yet. But, yes, we will be dissolving the Parliament, and who knows what will happen after that. But one thing that the Justice and Electoral Committee is united on is, of course, making sure that everybody has access to justice. As part of that, we do need to ensure that our system is modern, that it is efficient, and that it is effective.

The one thing that I need to praise in these amendment bills is the fact that, in the civil arena, the disputes tribunal monetary threshold will rise from $15,000 to $30,000, and, certainly—from my previous life as a solicitor and working for clients—this will be a welcome change. Obviously, as the economy is growing and people enter into commercial transactions, when there is a dispute people look for fast and effective ways to settle disputes, and, of course, the disputes tribunal is a judicial body that is often used to deal with this when a negotiation cannot bring about a satisfactory outcome. So I know that this raising of the threshold from $15,000 to $30,000 will be welcomed in the community. It allows the opportunity for people to take their claims to this tribunal to be heard, and by raising that threshold and giving a larger discretion to the judge, that means that these claims are settled more quickly and efficiently, and that, of course, is a good thing in our justice system.

The other point that I want to talk about that I am impressed with in these bills is, of course, the streamlined processes for lower-level offences punishable by community work—allowing defendants to enter a written plea rather than making that physical appearance in court. Again, this adds to efficiency. The defendant is still getting a fair hearing; they are able to enter their plea in writing and put supporting documentation around that, but, again, it streamlines the processes so that courts are not bogged down by these lower-level offences and can judge on the merits of the case, with respect to that. So that is an important streamlining process that will be investigated in the select committee process, but I think, on the face of it, it is a good one.

Certainly, to pick up on a third—to give the court security staff more powers to deal with unruly people in courts. When you are in a court and there is disruption, of course it is very distracting, but people do need to feel safe when they are presenting their case and when they are coming to be heard, so to give further extension of these powers to court officers to detain or remove people who are abusive or disruptive and creating disorder, that is a good thing—to allow these people who have rightly gone to court to have their day, to be heard, and to feel safe, but also to give extra mana to the court process and to the judiciary. When one goes to the judiciary, it is an important process. It is about justice, it is about democracy, and we need to maintain that level of respect in a courtroom. So I think that that is an important amendment to look at, to give further powers to make courts more secure.

I think that this is a timely introduction of these two bills to, again, fit with our Better Public Services targets to make the justice system more modern and efficient and effective, and I support these bills to the House.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. As a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee—we have another piece of legislation that has been referred to our select committee and, as my colleague Andrew Little has highlighted, it is in incredibly relevant and important areas to do with court matters and also tribunal powers and procedures. I just specifically want to talk to those tribunal powers and procedures because in the legislation we have specifically talked about the disputes tribunal and the raising of the threshold from $15,000 to $30,000. We have also looked at the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal and the ability to award monetary compensation up to $100,000, and, specifically, mention has been made of the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Licensing Authority.

The other aspect of the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill has been about the standardisation of powers and procedures for the other tribunals. I just want to note what those tribunals are. They are disputes tribunals, the Tenancy Tribunal, licences and certificates tribunals, the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal, immigration tribunals, the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal, the Abortion Supervisory Committee, accident compensation bodies, the Copyright Tribunal, Customs Appeal Authority, land valuation tribunals, the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal, the Legal Aid Tribunal, the Social Security Appeal Authority, the tax authority, Trans-Tasman Occupations Tribunal, the Weathertight Homes Tribunal, and the Waitangi Tribunal. I just want to highlight that I did not even know that we had a students tribunal, but that tribunal exists to appeal Ministry of Social Development decisions on student allowances.

The tribunal I specifically want to focus on is the Human Rights Review Tribunal. The Human Rights Review Tribunal reviews decisions by the Human Rights Commission, the Privacy Commissioner, and also the Health and Disability Commissioner. The reason I specifically want to speak to the Human Rights Review Tribunal is that there was a minute dated 10 March 2017, and that minute, which was written by the chair of that tribunal, Rodger Haines, highlighted these particular issues—it highlighted that the workload of the tribunal has increased from 38 cases in 2014 to 81 cases in 2015 to 93 cases in 2016. The relevance of that increased workload is that, because of the jurisdiction of his role, he is actually empowered under Part 4 of the Human Rights Act—section 104(4). He is the only one who can sit on any case and determine any interim orders.

Because of the legislation, there seems to be an issue, and so in that minute, Rodger Haines highlighted that the Act allows the appointment of a deputy chair only when he is unavailable. So, in fact, what we have seen, for example—and I will use a case that I had in the Human Rights Review Tribunal. I took a case in July 2013. We had a hearing in July 2014, and, in fact, the written judgment came out only in May 2017. So it took 2 years and 10 months for a decision to come out of the Human Rights Review Tribunal.

The reality of the situation is that there must be an amendment to section 102(1) of the Human Rights Act, and, in fact, in the minute, Rodger Haines has suggested what that amendment should be. Section 102(1) should read, “… the Governor-General, on the recommendation of the Minister, may appoint a deputy chair or chairs of the Tribunal …”. What that would do is actually enable the tribunal to manage its workload. I also think it would enable the Minister and the tribunal to appoint specific tribunal chairs under the areas of human rights, privacy, and health and disability.

I bring this to the House because I do not think that those changes can be accommodated in this piece of legislation, and so I am highlighting that, whilst we support these two pieces of legislation to select committee, already I have identified another tribunal that needs another specific amendment. So what I am hoping is that through this process and through the ability of representatives of those other tribunals that I have read out, they will be able to come to the select committee and make specific recommendations about further amendments that would actually enhance the ability of the tribunals and the courts to do their job, because that seems to be the emphasis of this piece of legislation—to make our courts and to make our tribunals more accessible for the public and to actually expedite decisions.

In fact, what has happened in my particular case is that I have appealed the decision, because after 2 years and 10 months there are some issues in terms of accuracy of the judgment that was passed down. I am having to go to the High Court to challenge that decision, and so it seems to be an inefficiency in the system that I have had to do that. I do believe that just as the High Court has some very specific goals around how long it should take for judgments to be issued—90 percent of High Court cases within 3 months—I think it is also valuable for us to look at other amendments at this early stage that could possibly be made to this piece of legislation.

So I will leave my contribution there, but I also hope that I will be a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee, or whatever it may be called in the future, because it is a committee that I think has been incredibly collegial. We have worked in a really constructive manner to make sure that the pieces of legislation that go through our select committee actually take on board recommendations through the select committee process, because we want the best legislation in order to enhance the functioning of our courts, our tribunals, and, ultimately, our justice system. Kia ora.

I too stand in support of the Courts Matters Bill and the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill in their first readings here today. It is quite a nostalgic day as we recognise that the Justice and Electoral Committee, under the guidance of its chair, Sarah Dowie, and the Law and Order Committee, under the stewardship of Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi, will no longer exist when this bill is referred in the new Parliament. Presumably, the select committee will be then called the “Super Justice Committee”, or just the Justice and Electoral Committee.

This legislation is very much in line with the Government’s direction in its tidying-up of old legislation, bringing the language into modern language, and streamlining some of the processes, taking into account the modern world that we do live in today. We are going to be streamlining some of the powers and procedures that the tribunals and the courts undertake—especially in the tribunals. We have heard from Louisa Wall, the previous speaker, that there are 21 tribunals administered by the Ministry of Justice. They all have a common set of powers and procedures to operate under, and this certainly will create some administrative efficiencies.

We have also heard today about the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal and its ability to now take even stronger action to award compensation of up to $100,000 for financial losses. That will be significant for that sector. Also, the Private Security Personnel Licensing Authority will be able to discipline its licensees and its certificate holders if they are found to be in breach of their conduct—in conduct unbecoming for that trade, such as bullying or other forms of misconduct.

The legislation also sets out to disestablish one defunct tribunal. As the Minister for Courts, Amy Adams, pointed out earlier today, the Birdlings Flat Land Titles Commissioner is in her district. I note that Birdlings Flat is close to the shores of Lake Ellesmere, and it was named after the Birdling family, who were the first European settlers to farm the area there. Of significance to me is that it is also the place that I caught my very first fish. I am very famous for my fishing, down there at Birdlings Flat. This legislation also disestablishes other tribunals: the boards of appeal under the Health Act of 1956, and the Maritime Appeal Authority under the Maritime Transport Act of 1994.

This Government is not afraid of creating efficiencies and transparency within any of the organisations that we take responsibility for, and especially not in our courts and tribunals. So we are quite happy that these changes will better reflect the needs of today by creating some timely and specialist dispute resolution outside the court system.

The legislation also aims to improve the tribunals’ scope to hear cases, and, again, that will make them more accessible for dispute resolution. It will also provide better consumer protection and redress for people, because these tribunals are simply quicker and cheaper alternatives to going off to a very time-consuming and expensive court case.

The amendments to fine enforcement also improve customer services in the courts and productivity, and they also give credibility to the fines regime. I know there are quite a few stories that we hear about people who have had a fine imposed on them, but sometimes it is quite difficult for the courts to recover those fines, so this sets out to make that more efficient.

This Government has also implemented other reforms to our justice system recently. This makes it easier for people to understand, to participate in, and to use it; it provides the flexibility and responsiveness that we would expect from our judicial system; and, of course, it is transparent. These bills I have great pleasure in supporting, and I commend them to the House.

I am pleased to take a call on these cognate bills, the Courts Matters Bill and the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill. I think we share a common position with the Labour Party. We will be supporting these bills to select committee, but at the select committee we will be wanting to have a few matters resolved. There is some good content in these bills—they do some useful and positive things—but there are also some issues that we do take with some of the new provisions in the bills and, indeed, there are some matters we think could usefully be included in the bills. Given that they are omnibus bills, there is an opportunity there to perhaps insert some further provisions into them.

I think it is timely to be looking at the processes of the courts. We could regret, I think, that this legislation is somewhat incremental. It does make changes, but given that if you talk to judges—perhaps off the record—and certainly lawyers and people engaged in the courts on a day-to-day basis such as court staff, I think they would uniformly assure you that the operation of the courts could be a great deal better than it is. There are road blocks. There are issues of timeliness and of accuracy. There are a great many matters around our courts. There are serious issues about the broader matter of access to justice. There are too many people who, for a variety of reasons, are unable to access our courts, and thereby to access justice. Some of those are funding issues and some of them are legislative or regulatory, but I think we could really do well with an overall, almost clean slate approach to the operations of our courts.

I share, again, Mr Little’s comments about some of his concerns about the language around efficiency. Certainly we do need to improve the efficiency of the courts, and I am reminded a year or two ago there was a programme in place called the eBench, which I understand was endeavouring to eliminate a great deal of the paperwork to enable a lot more day-to-day transmission of documents and the like electronically. That project failed, I understand. Whether through hiccups in the software or for whatever reason, it did not progress, but I do think that would be, certainly, something that any Government ought to be addressing. I recall that the Justice and Electoral Committee, I think, or the Law and Order Committee was taken into the nether regions of the Wellington District Court and shown just few months’ worth of paperwork, and it was a very large room stacked to the ceiling with paper. I think we do have to consider, in the broader scheme of efficiency in the courts, that to the extent that we can get an electronic exchange of documents and the like, providing they are secure and able to be validated and so on, I think it would be a very useful step forward.

In terms talking about efficiency, however, we have to be a little bit humble, collectively, in remembering that some of the previous reforms of the courts that were intended to increase efficiency have actually achieved the exact opposite. I am thinking of the centralisation of records, particularly in some of the larger Auckland courts, in Auckland, in Manukau, and in Waitakere, where the centralisation of records and information has led to a really significant reversal, in fact, in terms of efficiency. I constantly hear from lawyers that having centralised documents in one or two places means that lawyers and court staff often no longer have the personal relationships that have actually facilitated the flow of the business of the courts in the past. It is unfortunate that that centralisation programme, despite on paper being wonderfully apparent to drive efficiency, actually has not done that, and so as these bills work their way through the committees I think it is important that the recent experience of attempts to make courts more efficient should be fairly close to top of mind.

One of these bills is focusing on tribunals, and that is a good thing. Tribunals are often the unsung heroes of our justice system. People, ordinary New Zealanders, are more likely to engage with a tribunal, I believe, than they are with a District Court or a High Court or any other court. And so to the extent that this does look at matters affecting tribunals, I think that is a very positive thing and a useful development. I think the idea of increasing the monetary threshold for the disputes tribunal from at most $20,000 up to $30,000 is sensible. In the passage of time, $30,000 is not worth as much as it was 5 or 10 years ago, obviously. Inflation alone would suggest that a higher threshold would be appropriate, and I think that is a useful step.

I think there would be general support for imposing a little bit more of a monetary penalty on real estate agents who run amok. There have been too many instances where agents have not performed professionally, and that can come at extraordinary cost to people who are seeking to buy homes or people who have sold homes and discover that in fact they have been cheated when those homes get sold on, often in a matter of hours, to significant advantage to the agent rather than to the vendor. So I think that will win some support. Similarly, being able to get some more structure around the private security personnel and private investigators—I can say, having for my sins been a private security person for some 3 years or so as a part-time occupation as a student, that that sector was not in a particularly happy state. I do think that as it has become increasingly professional, and as training requirements have come up, the additional disciplinary authority given to the oversight body will be a useful and positive thing.

I would have to say the Greens are slightly less happy about the increased powers that are intended to be given to court security officers (CSOs). The power to detain, effectively the power to arrest, for a range of matters and actions—these are powers that we associate with police more readily. Our police force is highly trained, very professional, and 99.9 percent of the time it gets it right. While it is very simple to give more power to court security officers, we would like to be reassured through the course of these proceedings, as the bills go through, that in parallel with giving these individuals more powers they will also be given more training and more capability. I think of simple things like being able to detain a person for carrying drugs or associated paraphernalia. It is a pretty straightforward comment, but what actually constitutes “associated paraphernalia”? I suspect a police officer could give you a pretty comprehensive description, but I am equally sure that most court security officers could not.

Similarly, I get a little bit concerned about the language that a person can be detained, potentially, if they refuse to obey a direction from a CSO to do or not to do anything “that is reasonably necessary to protect the safety and security” of people around the court precinct. That language of “reasonably necessary” implies a fairly high level of judgment, a good understanding of the law, a good understanding of what is appropriate behaviour, and a good understanding of what is just posing or grandstanding and what actually does genuinely represent a threat. I guess the key point for me would be to say that as we give these officers more powers, we need to be very, very sure that they will also have the capacity and the training to be able to meet those powers.

Equally, we have some concerns—and these may well be resolved; I mean, these are matters for debate at the committee, rather than hard and fast positions—about the giving of more authority to registrars and judicial officers to do things like issue arrest warrants. These, again, are powers that are more commonly associated with judges. I do think that as we allow people more power, more responsibility, and more authority, we need to be convinced that the training, that the accountability, and that the associated responsibility placed on them to get it right will be applied and implemented alongside these bills as they are enacted.

So having in those few words indicated that the Greens will support this legislation, we will be looking for some changes and some clarity around some of the provisions at the select committee, but on balance they do seem to do some useful things, and we can support them at least that far. Thank you.

New Zealand First will support these two cognate bills to the select committee for further scrutiny. In fact, we think that they are very good bills that have been a long time coming. They are part of a programme, as the Minister of Justice said in her speech, of legislation to improve the operation of the courts generally, and we have seen some pretty substantial legislation along those lines come forward during this term. They are non-political in nature. They are work that has been done over many, many years, and I think that whoever was in Government would be bringing these bills forward to improve the justice system.

These two are both very substantial bills when you look at them. There is quite a lot of detail in them, and they will certainly need scrutiny at the select committee stage. They will also need good public consultation, because the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill in particular covers things that members of the public have a great deal of interest in, and they have a great deal of interest in them because members of the public themselves take a direct part in the justice system through the tribunals network—and there certainly are plenty of tribunals. So I am sure that we will get a lot of submissions, and we will need to look at those very closely.

Turning first to the Courts Matters Bill, this is possibly the most important of the two, although they are both very important. We in New Zealand First totally agree with the objective of the bill, which is to ensure that the court system is independent, fair, and efficient. I would add “accessible” to that list, because that is probably the most important of all the principles upon which this sort of legislation needs to be based. When the objectives include “to reduce the time” we also have to bear in mind that that is not an objective by itself, and that we must also provide a full, proper, and fair process to all of the participants of the system. So reducing time has to be balanced by that.

I do think, though, as is stated in one of the objectives, that the greater use of modern technology will be welcomed by everybody. There is not much point in having modern technology if it is not going to be used, and the courts seem to lag behind in terms of the application of those technologies. So it is good to see that it is being sped up. I do think it is just as important, though, that forms and templates need to be simpler. They need to be in plain English, so that not only lawyers but also participants in processes can take a proper part. I will have a bit more to say about access to justice when I come to the tribunals bill if I get time to get that far.

I would like to make some comments about Part 1, which includes amendments to the court security system. I agree in part with what David Clendon said about that. We in New Zealand First do support the expanded powers for the court security officers, because there are many cases of unruly behaviour in the courts and it is important for security reasons that those officers have those powers, but they do need to be applied with some discretion so that we do not get infringements of people’s right to observe what is going on and support other people. That is often a fine line to tread, but I hope that court security officers, having been given these powers, will be trained in how to use them so that those rights are not infringed. But, overall, where New Zealand First does support those powers, we think it is actually necessary. Those powers include the right to remove or detain people who are intimidating, abusive, or otherwise causing disruption. It is only for those reasons, and it is important, as I say, that the officers need to be trained to make sure that they do not go too far.

Also included is the authority for these officers to detain people whom they believe have committed or attempted to commit a wider range of offences. These include things like carrying illegal drugs and its associated paraphernalia, attempting to commit an offence that would threaten the safety or security of people in the courts, refusing to give their name, refusing to leave the court when asked to do so because of their behaviour, and generally refusing to obey a direction. We think that those are necessary and desirable additional powers, and we will support them.

Concerning Part 2 of the Courts Matters Bill, those are the provisions that refer to the Criminal Procedure Act. There are some good improvements there that will, for example, improve the ability to put offences in categories that are more appropriate. There is the provision relating to category 1 and category 2 offences where, for example, defendants in category 2 cases are required to appear in court. Those are the sorts of simple things that do make the courts work better.

I can see the time ticking on. There are some other things I had wanted to say about the Courts Matters Bill but I prefer to go on now to the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill. The first thing I want to say is that the one thing that this bill does not address, and the one thing that the Government has not addressed in this term of Parliament, is the legal aid eligibility thresholds. Those have not been changed for some time. The thresholds are too tough. Many people fall outside them, and so people with very few means are not able to get legal aid. That needs urgent attention, and this Government has not done it. That is the most important way that we can improve access to justice.

It applies in the disputes tribunal, and currently what it says is this: for a single applicant with no dependent children the threshold for income is only $23,326 per year. For a single applicant with one dependent child, or an applicant with a spouse or partner and no dependent children, it is only $36,940 a year. For a single applicant with two dependent children, or an applicant with a spouse or partner and one dependent child, it is still only $53,119 per year. I think most people would agree that those thresholds are too tough and that too many people would fall outside them. I know from people who come into my office, and from many other sources, that this is a real problem. This is something this Government should have addressed by this time, and could have done so as part of the consideration of this bill.

However, there are many other things in the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill that we do think are worthwhile. They include such things as creating an offence of contempt of a tribunal, with substantial penalty. Now, many years ago—in fact, decades ago—I was a disputes tribunal referee. I know that this is really a problem. It can be a real problem when you have a couple of parties there in front of you, they are emotionally charged, and all sorts of unfortunate things can happen. So to have those powers would be important.

Similarly, there is the offence of failing to comply with a summons—a new offence there. Issuing practice notes for people who are involved in operating the tribunals systems would also be a useful addition. And one that I think is very important is the liability to publish decisions. People may assume that that has always been done; in fact, it has not, especially in tribunals. That is actually another aspect of access to justice, because when decisions are readily available, it actually assists a lot of people in a lot of different circumstances. So I am glad to see that is there. Also, there is the greater use of electronic hearings, especially by telephone. That is already possible in disputes tribunals. It needs to be across the board for other tribunals as well. The additional powers concerning summoning of witnesses, allowing the awarding of costs, and other measures to deal with contempt are also all welcome additions to the tribunals system.

New Zealand First does welcome these two bills. We think that there are going to need to be some changes, and, as I have said, there are certainly some things that I would wish to pursue.

It is a pleasure to take a short call on this, the Courts Matters Bill. The goal of this bill is to increase the efficiency of courts and tribunals, and it does this in several ways. Firstly, it looks to decrease the time to hear and resolve matters, it improves the user’s experience, it seeks to use technology, and it increases consumer protections and redress.

I would like to elaborate on what some of these things mean operationally. This is an omnibus bill, so the Courts Security Act 1999 is one of the Acts that is changed by amendments. What interests me is how we improve the user’s experience in court. This is done primarily by increasing the mandate of the court security officers. The bill does this by redefining what specified offences might mean initially. Clause 5, which amends section 2 of the Courts Security Act, talks to this and describes an offence under the Crimes Act, the Summary Offences Act, the Arms Act, and section 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. Of course, that is what brings in the paraphernalia and drugs that may come into a courtroom.

New section 15(A) wisely talks about the removal of alcohol from a courtroom. New section 18(A) talks about court security officers and their ability to refuse entry or remove people if an officer believes on reasonable grounds—and I take my colleague’s point that this will need to be discussed further in the select committee—that the person is harassing or intimidating, or is at serious risk of committing violence or damage to property. For all of those reasons they can be refused entry or removed. The next level of intervention, if you like, is to actually detain people. New section 19(A) talks about how people may be detained. They are able to be detained if they refuse to leave court premises as directed, refuse to obey an instruction from a court security officer, commit an offence on court premises, and refuse to give their full name, address, and date of birth at the request of a court security officer.

The last part I want to talk to is new section 20A, in clause 14, which, interestingly enough, is the power to pursue a person. So for people who are detained and flee, “a court security officer may, and, if the court orders, must, pursue that person while he or she is within a short distance of the court security officer,”. I am sure that will be discussed thoroughly in the select committee as well—what “pursue” means, what “a short distance” means. I think these will be interesting discussions. This is an important bill, an omnibus bill, and it is my pleasure to commend it to the select committee. Thank you.

I rise on behalf of the Greens to support the Courts Matters Bill and the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill. We will be supporting these to select committee, and, as my colleague David Clendon has already outlined, we welcome some parts of the legislation, but we have some concerns. Firstly, we see merit in what the legislation is proposing to do in terms of standardising processes; making it clearer and simpler for users to access justice; making sure that the systems are modernised when it comes to filing, storage, and communication; and making sure that the courts are operating in a more efficient way. So, absolutely, we welcome making sure that we can offer a good, robust system in our courts process.

I think, though, at this stage, that it is worth mentioning that the courts are facing a backlog of work, and we know that there was gutting to the funding for the courts. So I think we also need to consider a systemic response while this legislation is trying to catch up on some of that. I think we need to understand why there was a backlog in the first place. I did want to mention that. We look forward to the select committee submissions on both what the Greens think this legislation offers in terms of its merit, but also on our concerns.

The courts matters and tribunals bills have a range of amendments with the intent of improving the efficiency of the courts and tribunals systems, which I have just referred to. But we are particularly concerned—and this is what I wanted to spend most of my time on—about the Courts Matters Bill, which will give court officers the power to issue an arrest warrant when they think it is necessary to compel the attendance of a defendant. The fact is that this bill significantly extends the powers of court security officers to detain people.

The Green Party is always concerned about extending powers of detention and arrest in particular. At this stage it is police officers who have those powers. We will want to remain concerned about extending those powers to court officers. I particularly wanted to highlight that a concern that we should have is that this is another opportunity to consider the cumulative impact of a justice system that is not free from bias and discrimination—something that is evidenced and researched and known very well and very clearly.

What, then, will extending the powers of court officers to detain and arrest—what does that mean for the situation where, already, Māori and Pacific people are overrepresented in our justice system by virtue of having a justice system that is not fair and is not free from bias? What will that cumulative impact mean if we are going to extend the very powers that have not been used fairly across all of the communities and groups in our country? We are going to want to have a good look at that at the select committee stage.

I am quite keen, also, on understanding the training that is going to be required to ensure that we do not transfer over the very discrimination that is used currently in arresting and detention when it comes to Māori in the community, and that we do not transfer that very discriminatory practice, which we still have not sorted out even for police.

So that was the main core of my contribution at this first reading. We will be wanting to go over that quite deeply at the select committee stage. As I said at the beginning, we do welcome the parts of the bill that will have merit in terms of upgrading and modernising our system. But, again, we also need to address the cause of the backlog that the courts are facing in the very first place, and we will remain concerned about the extension of powers of detention and arrest. Thank you.

One of the pieces of legislation that has changed in the Courts Matters Bill has to do with court security. It is fair to say that there is a need for more security than there was when I was a young lawyer. I think the most amusing security incident I can recall was when I was working in Dunedin. These lawless people in the South had a problem, with one of the accused appearing in the Southland court throwing a swede at the judge—ha, ha!

These changes are necessary. They actually do not cure the underlying problem that we have got in our civil courts, which worries me, and that is that I have always thought that access to justice is largely a function of cost, and when the cost of civil processes becomes so high that unless you are legally aided or wealthy you cannot afford to access the system, then the civil courts are failing to meet their social purpose.

I think we are at that point in New Zealand where our civil courts are not meeting their social purpose. The disputes tribunal is not the answer; its jurisdiction is about: “Right, we actually have to do something to improve the efficiency of the civil courts.” I think there is a real need to take some of these rules from the exclusive control of lawyers and impose some practical methods of bringing civil processes to trial early so that people can get the determination of a judge, which they will generally accept, and if they do not they can always appeal.

With that, I am aware that we have got to get on to valedictory speeches. We also support the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill, and the Labour Party will be voting in the bills favour.

I am just going to take a short call on this legislation. While we are on the subject of justice and electoral matters, I just wanted to make a special mention of Maniapoto, who have been in the House today and signed an agreement in principle. Thanks to all of those involved. I could not think of any better justice for those people in the King Country.

This legislation really is legislation that is looking at simplifying and standardising the powers and procedures for the tribunals. It is for our 21 tribunals, and I think it is commendable. I have not been on the committee, but it is important that we simplify the justice system so that people can understand it as they go through. I commend this legislation to the House. Thank you.

Debate interrupted.

Honourable members, in accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, I call on the Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga to make his valedictory statement.